DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on January 16, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 4-9, 11-12 and 17-18 are withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-3048014-A
“SCHMIDT”
US-2294029-A
“HIGH”
US-2387690-A
“STEIZEL”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHMIDT in view of HIGH.
Re Claim 1, SCHMIDT teaches a gas turbine engine (1:20) comprising a fuel injector (3:10-24; 5:42-65; 6:51-71). However, SCHMIDT fails to teach the fuel injector including the follow aspects recited in claim 1:
an outer valve body having:
an inner passage; and
a wall at least partially enclosing the inner passage, the wall having an inner surface, an outer surface, and one or more channels passing through the wall from the outer surface of the wall to the inner surface of the wall; and
a retractable valve body positioned within the inner passage of the outer valve body, the retractable valve body having a fluid spin chamber formed in the retractable valve body and one or more slots formed through the retractable valve body in fluid communication with the fluid spin chamber, each of the one or more slots having an orifice positioned in the inner passage of the outer valve body,
wherein the retractable valve body is positioned within the inner passage to move along a reciprocating axis at a plurality of valve positions including
an advanced valve position,
a retracted valve position,
an open valve position that at least partial aligns at least one of the one or more slots with at least one of the one or more channels to allow fluid communication between the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body and the at least one of the one or more channels, and
a closed valve position at which, the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body is closed from fluid communication with each of the one or more channels.
HIGH teaches an engine comprising:
a fuel injector (Figs. 1-6) including:
an outer valve body 26 having:
an inner passage [hollow cavity formed by 26, including 33]; and
a wall 30 at least partially enclosing the inner passage, the wall having an inner surface, an outer surface, and one or more channels 34 passing through the wall from the outer surface of the wall to the inner surface of the wall; and
a retractable valve body 40 positioned within the inner passage of the outer valve body, the retractable valve body having a fluid spin chamber 41 formed in the retractable valve body and one or more slots 42 formed through the retractable valve body in fluid communication with the fluid spin chamber, each of the one or more slots having an orifice [inlet orifice to 42] positioned in the inner passage of the outer valve body (entirety of 42, including its inlet orifice is located in the hollow cavity formed by 26),
wherein the retractable valve body is positioned within the inner passage to move along a reciprocating axis [injector longitudinal centerline] (see Image 1 below) at a plurality of valve positions (e.g., Figures 1-3 and in between positions) including
an advanced valve position (position between Figure 1 and Figure 2),
a retracted valve position (Figure 2),
an open valve position that at least partial aligns at least one of the one or more slots with at least one of the one or more channels to allow fluid communication between the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body and the at least one of the one or more channels (Figure 1 position; or position between Figure 1 and Figure 2), and
a closed valve position at which, the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body is closed from fluid communication with each of the one or more channels (Figure 2 or Figure 3). See Figures 1-6 and col. 1 line 54 to col. 3 line 46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fuel injector of SCHMIDT such that it takes the form taught by HIGH discussed above, in order to facilitate intermittent fuel injection with an injection device that is of economical construction (HIGH column 1 lines 28-38, col. 4 lines 21-23; SCHMIDT 5:52-65, 6:51-71).
NOTE – element 41 of HIGH constitutes a “fluid spin chamber” as claimed consonant with Applicant’s use of the term in the disclosure because the momentum of the fuel has a component that is perpendicular to the reciprocating axis from at least 42. See Applicant’s disclosure at ¶¶0069, 0072.
PNG
media_image1.png
1421
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the one or more slots, the one or more channels, or the one or more slots and the one or more channels impart a rotational motion around the reciprocating axis to fluid passing between the one or more channels and the fluid spin chamber.
HIGH further teaches wherein the one or more slots, the one or more channels, or the one or more slots and the one or more channels impart a rotational motion around the reciprocating axis to fluid passing between the one or more channels and the fluid spin chamber (the one or more slots [42] and the one or more channels [34] impart a rotational motion around the reciprocating axis to fluid [fuel] passing between the one or more channels [34] and the fluid spin chamber [41] because the one or more channels 34 and the one or more slots 42 facilitate a flow path across annular groove 43, which is a groove extending around the reciprocating axis prior to reaching the fluid spin chamber; see Figure 6. Notably since 34 is wider in cross section than 42 and 41 (Figure 6), the combination will impart radial motion to some fuel [flowing directly to 42] and rotational motion to other fuel [fuel reaching 42 after flowing around 43] flowing around reciprocating axis as facilitated by the shape, size and orientation of slots 42 and channels 34 with respect to one another, groove 43 and swirl passage 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine the one or more slots, the one or more channels, or the one or more slots and the one or more channels impart a rotational motion around the reciprocating axis to fluid passing between the one or more channels and the fluid spin chamber, for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1.
The recited limitation “wherein the one or more slots, the one or more channels, or the one or more slots and the one or more channels impart a rotational motion around the reciprocating axis to fluid passing between the one or more channels and the fluid spin chamber” is a functional recitation and is accorded little patentable weight because it does not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure because the prior art is capable of the functional recitation for the reasons discussed above. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) and “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2114. Additionally, while it is noted “one or more slots and the one or more channels” together impart rotational motion as discussed above, it is noted that channels and slots individually also facilitate momentum of the fuel has a component that is perpendicular to the reciprocating axis (consonant with Applicant’s disclosure at ¶0072), which would generate turbulence and at least some of which would be result in rotational motion around the reciprocating axis.
Re Claim 3, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein each of the one or more slots has a through axis from the orifice to the fluid spin chamber and the through axis makes an angle alpha to the reciprocating axis and alpha ranges from twenty degrees to ninety degrees.
HIGH further teaches each of the one or more slots has a through axis [annotated in Image 1] from the orifice to the fluid spin chamber and the through axis makes an angle alpha to the reciprocating axis and alpha ranges from twenty degrees to ninety degrees (90 degrees; see Image 1 and Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein each of the one or more slots has a through axis from the orifice to the fluid spin chamber and the through axis makes an angle alpha to the reciprocating axis and alpha ranges from twenty degrees to ninety degrees, for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1.
Re Claim 13, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the retractable valve body is in contact with a spring and the spring applies a force on the retractable valve body towards the retracted valve position, the retracted valve position being the closed valve position.
HIGH further teaches wherein the retractable valve body is in contact with a spring 44 and the spring applies a force on the retractable valve body towards the retracted valve position, the retracted valve position being the closed valve position (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the retractable valve body so it is in contact with a spring and the spring applies a force on the retractable valve body towards the retracted valve position, the retracted valve position being the closed valve position, for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1.
Re Claim 14, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1. SCHMIDT further teaches wherein the fuel injector comprises a primary fuel nozzle 17 and a secondary fuel nozzle 14 (3:66 to 4:23), but as discussed so far fails to teach the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body is in fluid communication with the primary fuel nozzle.
HIGH further teaches the fuel injector the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body is in fluid communication with the primary fuel nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine such that the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body is in fluid communication with the primary fuel nozzle, for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1 and to provide intermittent injection for the main quantity of fuel for driving the engine (HIGH column 1 lines 28-38, col. 4 lines 21-23; SCHMIDT 5:52-65, 6:51-71).
Re Claim 15, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of valve positions in SCHMIDT in view of HIGH includes at least one fully open valve position (Figure 1 position of HIGH) that fully aligns the at least one of the one or more slots with the at least one of the one or more channels to allow fluid communication between the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body and the at least one of the one or more channels (See HIGH Figure 1, column 3 lines 31-54). See HIGH and Claim 1 above.
Re Claim 16, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the outer valve body (see HIGH) has an annular cross section in a plane perpendicular to the reciprocating axis (See HIGH Figures 4-6) and Claim 1 above.
Re Claim 19, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1. SCHMDIT further teaches a fuel supply [16, 18] in fluid communication with the fuel injector, and a combustion section [1, 2], wherein the fuel injector is positioned to pass fluid through a fuel nozzle tip into the combustion section (Figure 1). However SCHMIDT in view of HIGH as discussed so far fails to teach further comprising the fuel nozzle tip in fluid communication with the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body.
HIGH further teaches the fuel nozzle further comprising a fuel nozzle tip [tip portion including 29] in fluid communication with the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine such that it includes a fuel supply in fluid communication with the fuel injector, and a combustion section, wherein the fuel injector is positioned to pass fluid through a fuel nozzle tip into the combustion section, the fuel nozzle tip in fluid communication with the fluid spin chamber of the retractable valve body for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1.
Re Claim 20, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 19 and SCHMDIT further teaches an aircraft comprising the gas turbine engine (col. 1, 9-45; col. 7, lines 28-41)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHMIDT in view of HIGH as applied above, further in view of STEIZEL
Re Claim 10, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein as modified in Claim 1 each of the one or more channels has a cross-sectional area measured at the outer surface of the wall (see HIGH Figures 1 & 6). However, SCHMIDT in view of HIGH fails to expressly teach the cross-sectional area is circular or elliptical.
STEIZEL one or more channels has a cross-sectional area measured at the outer surface of the wall the cross-sectional area is circular or elliptical (see Figs. 2, 3; channels 49, 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cross-sectional area so it is circular or elliptical, since it has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, cylindrical flow path with circular cross section) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (providing the channels such they are cylindrical having a circular cross-sectional area measured at the outer surface of the wall) with no change in their respective functions (providing a desired flow path and flow rate through the wall), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (predictable flow through the channel to 43, 42, 41), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A. See also MPEP § 2144.04 IV (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b), §102, and §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record and relies on a new combination of references that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
April 21, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights